Is the media ignoring the "Good News" on VT Tragedy??

GOP official spinning Iraq on the talk radio this morning, upset that the good news isn't being reported. Here's the best comment I heard on the blogs today:

"I think that there are so many universities that didn't experience a massacre. I don't know why television is spending all this time covering what happened at Virginia Tech and deliberately ignoring the good news."

It was a response to a blog on Laura Bush--who recently stated that, when it comes to Iraq, "No one suffers more than the president and I do".

Yes, She actually said that.

Cheney Smacked Down by 85-Year Old Man

McGovern responds to Cheney. OUCH...

Vice President Dick Cheney recently attacked my 1972 presidential platform and contended that today's Democratic Party has reverted to the views I advocated in 1972. In a sense, this is a compliment, both to me and the Democratic Party. Cheney intended no such compliment. Instead, he twisted my views and those of my party beyond recognition. The city where the vice president spoke, Chicago, is sometimes dubbed "the Windy City." Cheney converted the chilly wind of Chicago into hot air. [...]

He also said that the McGovern way is to surrender in Iraq and leave the U.S. exposed to new dangers. The truth is that I oppose the Iraq war, just as I opposed the Vietnam War, because these two conflicts have weakened the U.S. and diminished our standing in the world and our national security.

In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat — a record matched by President Bush. [...]

On one point I do agree with Cheney: Today's Democrats are taking positions on the Iraq war similar to the views I held toward the Vietnam War. But that is all to the good. [...]

We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. On second thought, maybe it's wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy.

On a more serious note, instead of listening to the foolishness of the neoconservative ideologues, the Cheney-Bush team might better heed the words of a real conservative, Edmund Burke: "A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood."

WHO is cutting off funding??

I was furious when I found out that GOP Congressmen, supported by the Bush administration, visited Syria right before Nancy Pelosi, while another accompanied her to Syria. Nary a word from Nancy, other high-ranking Dems, or the media on the hypocrisy of the Bushies bashing Nancy for doing the same thing they support GOP members doing.

And it is happening AGAIN. I keep hearing the right-wing wacko pundits, along with the Dynamic Dumbasses of Bush and Cheney, crying to everyone that Democrats want to cut off funding for the troops in Iraq.

Here's the score folks:

The Democrats sent Bush a funding bill worth over a hundred BILLION dollars to continue funding his misguided adventure! Just this time, instead of the blank check he is used to getting, it requires strategic withdrawals beginning 120 days out--which is MORE than enough time to give his so-called "surge" the chance to work. Experts outside and inside the White House say we should know by summer's end anyway; although everyone outside the White House (besides Baghdad Bob McCain) has already stated the obvious---it's too little, too late.

And by the way, this IS what the AMERICAN people are demanding. Don't they get a say in this?

Bush is threatening to VETO funding for the troops. Draft-dodgers Bush and Cheney have already showed thier contempt by cutting off funding for their benefits, exposing them to predatory lenders, allowing them to fight without the support and armor they needed, and then allowing them to be treated in squalor when they inevitably got hurt as a result. Not to mention (mis)leading them into war based on lies and forcing them to stay to moderate a civil war for no other reason than to save face.

So, my fellow Dems, I ask you-- why the hell are WE being stuck with the cutting off funding label?? Why isn't our leadership screaming on the Sunday talk shows that it is Bush/Cheney who will be cutting off funding for refusing to change their failed strategy?

The GOP has showed that Loud and Wrong always trumps Weak and Right. But Loud and Right wins every hand. We have the Right part, how about the rest?

IMUS FIRED, so what about Raggedy Ann and Limbaugh??

Imus lashed out at the Rutgers female basketball team by calling them a racial and sexist slur. Breaking news is that he has been fired by MSNBC for his behavior (And this Thursday morning by NBC). This is big news because Imus is the center of a MULTIMILLION dollar business. And yet the big networks fired him and all major advertisers pulled out--making Rudy Guiliani look like a dork for accepting his apology. (You heard right, Rudy Guiliani actually said he "accepted" his apology and said he would appear on his show in the future--I guess he got over being called a "nappy-headed ho").

Colossal moron Bush didn't condemn the remarks, just congratulated Imus for apologizing. (Heck of a job, Imee). Romney at least said he would tell Imus how bad the remarks are IF he went back on the show... not seeing the irony of last month's embrace of Ann Coulter.

Which brings me to the crux of my diary...

If what Imus did was SO offensive, then how the hell can anyone justify the presence on our TVs, newspaper columns, and radio waves of hatemongers Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh?

Rush Limbaugh has made fun of blacks, hispanics, immigrants, women, and more recently, the handicapped. Ann Coulter completed the circle by making repulsive comments about arabs, asians, native americans and gays. And unlike Imus, neither was ever forced to apologize for their hateful remarks. Neither was ever disciplined. Quite the contrary.

Both receive million dollar royalties and invitations to speak at conservative forums and even the White House.

The liberal side has no one this hateful. The right has tried to make Michael Moore our demon, but Michael Moore hardly engages in hate speech (what ethnic group has he attacked? his movie thanked the troops for their sacrifice and made Bush look like the unprepared idiot he his---is this the same as telling an African-American to "take the bone" out of his nose (Limbaugh) or saying asians, particularly North Koreans, should be "nuked for fun" (Ann)?)

Both of these hateful bigots don't command the audience or money that IMUS does, but he didn't have the one thing he needed -- conservative cover.

If he is smart, he will take to the airways next week on his new show at FOX NEWS network screaming racist rhetoric but this time coupling it with swipes at the Democratic Congress. He will be back on top in no time, and won't ever again have to face Al Sharpton.

Baghdad Bob McCain Touts Success 1 Day before ATTACK

I think I will retract my previous dailykos diary that claims McCain will be the GOP nominee.

As you’ve no doubt already heard, he “jumped the shark” two days ago by staging a photo-op at a Baghdad marketplace subjected to massive car bombings, like the one in February that killed 71 people, to prove that Iraq is now safe and sound due to his surge. (Despite the inconvenient fact that the death toll has risen). According to McCain, we weren't getting the "full story" from the liberal media. That's all.

McCain’ idiot non-savant sidekick, GOP Congressman Mike Pence, who now can replace Dan Quayle as the dumbest politician to come from Indiana, actually compared the market they visited as:

"a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime."

I guess this is an indication of how Congressman Mike Pence would handle terrorist attacks on flea markets in Indiana: Don a flak jacket and claim the true problem isn’t the terrorists, it’s the liberal media failing to report on how many people weren’t killed by car bombs.

The charade required 100 US troops to secure the area as well as helicopter protection--not like they have something better to do than to provide cover for a photo-op.

ONE DAY LATER, yesterday, snipers attacked the very same marketplace.

No wonder those Hoosiers do most of their shopping by Internet...




UPDATE: ONe of my readers sent me this:

The latest massacre of Iraqi children came as 21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital.

The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress.

full story

GOP Votes Unanimously: NO ARMOR, NO PROTECTION

Loyalty to a manipulated moron in the White House takes precedent over loyalty to our troops in GOPland.

The Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee unanimously opposed ensuring that our troops sent to Iraq are properly prepared for their mission and protected with armor ONCE AGAIN! See Kango X's diary with a shocking video here:

Here's the list, including our own people:

Alabama: Robert Aderholt
California: John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis
Florida: Ander Crenshaw, Dave Weldon and C.W. "Bill" Young
Georgia: Jack Kingston
Idaho: Michael K. Simpson
Illinois: Mark Steven Kirk and Ray LaHood
Iowa: Tom Latham
Kansas: Todd Tiahrt
Kentucky: Harold Rogers
Louisiana: Rodney Alexander
Michigan: Joe Knollenberg
Mississippi: Roger Wicker
Missouri: Jo Ann Emerson
Montana: Dennis Rehberg
New Jersey: Rodney Frelinghuysen
New York: James Walsh
Ohio: Ralph Regula and David Hobson
Pennsylvania: John Peterson
Tennessee: Zach Wamp
Texas: John Carter, John Culberson and Kay Granger
Virginia: Virgil Goode and Frank Wolf

Hang in there guys. 2008 is coming around the corner!

Bets on the GOP Primary

Step right up. It’s time to play the "Who’s Left Standing" or "Who's Gonna Self Destruct the Least" and win the GOP Primary. Yes, I know it’s early—that’s why it’s fun to show off a little. Six months from now we will have a pretty clear idea—and a year from now it will be over. Let’s test those analytical/crystal ball skills of yours.

I don’t mean to brag, but I have picked the nominee for the GOP correctly 100% of the time since 1988. I also have the same track record for the Dems – I have always picked the WRONG one. But the GOP is much more predictable, and this time I can finally put my MOJO where my mouth is. If you follow the money, the support structure, and most importantly, get into the mind of the GOP primary voter—you can figure it out barring any last minute scandal. Here is my analysis of the contenders, who will ultimately win, and why.

Mitt Romney: NO DICE. My last poll showed a lot of you are leaning towards Romney. Originally a moderate who ran a deep blue state, but low and behold, all of the sudden he "found Jesus" (not the real one, the GOP version with the political platform who preaches intolerance and tax cuts). Lucky for Mitt, he found this Jesus right before courting conservatives for the GOP primary—whew! Close one. Now all of the sudden, he is rabidly anti-gay, strongly pro-life (and has always been, dammit), and embraces Ann Coulter.

Conservatives hate a flip-flop, but they they may figure he’s the best shot for them out of all the frontrunners. Guiliani isn’t one of them, and they just hate that McCain. However, hating people is what religious fundamentalists do best, and Mitt has something that religious conservatives love to hate—a different religion. It wasn’t that many years ago I was watching Pat Robertson rant on his 700 Club that Mormonism was "just plain wrong". The Baptist Church I used to go to here in Seminole (I switched fast) had a bible study that somehow turned into a sermon on the "abomination" of Christianity: ("Do you know what they believe???") The right-wing is pretty solidly behind Romney right now, though, as evidenced by wacko Hewitt’s latest book, A Mormon in the White House, where he tries to "justify" the "Mormon problem" and goes on to smear McCain.

But there are too many negatives. His fundraising isn’t close to the other two titans, and he hasn’t been in any leads except for a straw poll (that he really should have skipped---tying him to Raggedy Ann didn’t boast him that much with conservatives, but it was probably the kiss of death for any broader appeal along with his sudden hard-right turn). I doubt that even the state he goverened would go for him, and I predict that it won’t happen for Mitt.

John McCain: DICE. He’ll probably win. The GOP believes in the establishment candidate. His appeal in 2000 was that he was the "maverick" candidate who talked straight and had broad appeal. But then he was Karl ROVED and slimed big time for it, with dumb GOP primary voters believing that he voted "against" breast cancer research and listening to push-pollers on his "illigitimate black child". I lost a lot of respect for McCain for calculating that he would support Bush and tolerate the attacks on himself and his family, even going so far to kiss Bush’s ass REPEATEDLY throughout the past 7 years, all so he could be the "establishment" candidate in 2008.

No one thinks he is a maverick any more. Dems no longer respect him, and that spells trouble because the GOP faithful still claims he is "one of us", especially after he put the smack down on the nuclear option. I really hope he gets his teeth kicked in at the primary, but GOP faithful normally do their master’s bidding without question—and it has been decreed that it’s John’s "turn".

Although he has been the only candidate to be consistently right-wing on his conservative social views, the religious right just doesn’t like him. This was solidified in 2000 when he railed against these nuts when W spoke at Bob Jones U. Robertson told George Stephanopolis that he would not support McCain under "any circumstances", but Falwell has warmed up to him, even allowing him to speak at his own right-wing breeding ground (Liberty University) in Virginia.

The age issue will be a factor in the general election, but won’t matter that much to GOP primary voters. They would vote for the corpse of Ronald Reagan if it was still on the ticket.

He has the money, the smarts, and the keys to the Bush machine as the consolation prize for sucking up and playing ball with the Bushies. Hell, he even got the go ahead for access to the Ranger/Pioneer followers of Dear Leader. Game, Set, Match. Prove me wrong, folks!

Rudy Guiliani: DICE? If not McCain, he's the man. I used to think he had a shot, but now I think he won’t win. The right will simply not tolerate a pro-choice Repbulican to be their candidate. Falwell stated that he would not speak ill of Guiliani, but won’t support him because of his pro-choice, pro-gay views. Guiliani is trying to pander by promising judges who would overturn Roe, but as I said before, the right doesn’t buy it and it just frightens the moderates.

But he thought that his 9/11 performance, (which got a free pass in the press at that time because we were lookin for heroes), would be enough to get traction to carry him past the wackos and make the grade at the primary. People DO want strong leadership, the problem is that its not Guiliani. The letter by the NYC firefighters released last week put the smack down on his performance, and if he did make it past the primary, he would be swiftboated so bad it would have to be renamed. The commercials would feature 1st responsders would going on right after another telling the real story. Once the 9/11 halo is crushed, all you have left is a racially-insensivtive, nasty, ill-tempered, two-timing power-hungry bully.

Brownback: Too poor, too much like Bush, couldn’t win the general election if only Nader was on the ticket (Nader will run again, by the way). The faithful would love to have him, but they know (or should know ) they will never get another right-wing wacko in the White House. At least Bush posed as a moderate in 2000—and he didn’t even win the election. America will have suffered 8 long years of hell by 2008—the last thing they want is a Bush clone.

Huckabee: Same deal. Fawned all over how great Bush was not so long ago until even the dittoheads had to finally admit that Bush was clueless. All people know about him is that he lost a lot of weight, but not in his head. He will win Arkansas on Feb. 5, but that’ll be it.

Hunter, Tancredo: Fringe candidates so far down its not even funny or worth my time.

Jeb Bush: Won’t run, but I added him because he is the only one who could jump in late and make up the difference. Still popular in my home swing state of Florida, and the Dems gave him a free pass which allowed his star to rise (Message to my fellow FL Dems—you are doing the same damn thing with Crist—Knock it OFF!) Luckily, he is unpopular out of state--only being known as the Schiavo huckster, or unknown except for the Bush name—and since the Bush presidents have gotten consistently worse, I don’t think he’ll have a shot if he did run. He would be a good candidate for Veep for either Rudy or Romney—McCain wouldn’t pick him.

Gingrich: As if. Had an affair while lecturing Clinton. How hypocritical can this hideous man-whore get?

There you have it folks—I say McCain. When I’m right, I will post an entry next year and say Nyah, Nyah, Nyah. (Unless I’m wrong, in which this will be deleted and I never would have said anything).

NYC Firefighters say "Hell No" to Guiliani

It's bad enough for his campaign that conservatives don't like him, hence probably why this story got picked up just now from FAUXNEWS. (I visit so you won't have to). But at least Rudy had that whole credibility thing with 9/11 and would parade around in a firefighter's jacket.

Not so damn fast.

Essentially, the International Association of Firefighters were going to invite all the major presidential candidates to their forum, but specifically left out Rudy Guiliani because of his decision to "scoop and dump" the victims, reducing the number of rescuers, and arresting 15 firefighters who protested.

The full content of the letter is here

The slam comes at the end:

We have heard from some affiliates that Giuliani's campaign is beginning to reach out to our locals, looking to build support. If you are contacted by Giuliani, Von Essen, or a representative of the Giuliani campaign, we hope you will say not just, "No," but, "Hell no." And please let the IAFF Political Affairs Department know about it by calling (202) 824-1582.

Here's why this is a problem. First, he lost a lot of respect for trashing his wife and alienating his son, although that was not enough to keep many religious conservatives away, (they let Ann Coulter speak for them at their conventions for God's sakes). No, his crime there was not being rabid anti-abortion.

This forced Guiliani to pander to the right, promising to appoint "strict constructionist" judges in the vein of "Scalia and Alito", code for pro-life judges who would do away with Roe. This is lose-lose because the pro-life conservatives don't believe it and pro-choicers who may have voted for him are now edgy with the balance on the Court "one vote away" from overturning Roe.

But Rudy was banking on all of that being overshawdowed by his Person of the Year performance on 9/11, since he is very correct in assuming that America is desperate for good leadership after 7 painful years of a manipulated moron at the helm.

But now these hard allegations are being brought to light that his performance was not as stellar as everyone thought, and if it picks up steam with other first responders across the country, then he will alienate more than just his immediate family on the campaign trail.

Published: Support for the Troops

This is would mark my sixth editorial in the Orlando Sentinel. I was responding to Cal Thomas' claim that the Democrats in Congress weren't supporting the troops by supporting the non-binding resolution that specifically said it supported them.

Click: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/ and go to "Support for the Troops"

How GOP Would Spin Britney Spears...

Britney Spears and George Bush have both made very bad decisions, but there is one big difference. Okay, yes, there is the one about countless deaths and billions wasted. But I'm talking about the other big difference -- the level of fanatic support. If those kinds of followers can still justify Bush's horrendous and deadly decisions concerning Iraq, just imagine how easy it would be to help out Mz. Spears.

Here is what you would be hearing on FAUXNEWS if only Britney had the same fanatic following:

The rant:

Neil, let me tell you something. I am sick to my stomach of the people and the liberal press jumping all over our beloved Britney Spears just because she made the bold move of taking drugs and cutting off her hair.

Was it popular to do? No. But leadership is not about following public opinion polls. I know her family, her fans, and all of the so-called psychology "experts" say that somehow, her head-shaving and hard-partying is symptomatic of bizarre behavior. Yet, Britney carefully weighed the options, and did it anyway. THAT, my liberal friends, is what leadership is all about. Britney is the DECIDER, so she has to do what she thinks is best—-despite what everyone else thinks, and despite what so-called "common sense" dictates. And as good Americans, we are obligated to support her no matter what.

How the hell can one think Britney’s enemies aren’t going to be EMBOLDENED by screaming headlines that read "Meltdown", or "Britney Needs Help"? And the kids? My God, the kids? You spineless cowards are essentially telling the kids of Britney that you have no faith in their DECIDER. I’ve said it a thousand times before, publicly smearing Britney is the same as publicly smearing the kids.

Those of us on the right (in the patriotic sense, that is) support Britney’s call to have 20 MORE kids sent to her. It’s escalation, sure, but do the Defeatocrats have a better solution? They do. It's called DEFEAT.

All I’ve heard from them is "It's really bad! Let’s pull the kids out of there!" Folks, taking the kids away from Britney is no different than just surrendering to the enemy. It tells the Federlines of the world that when the going gets a little rough, we like to "cut and run". Sure, that would be easy to do, and don't get me wrong: I WANT the kids back in a safe environment. But Dammit, not before the job is done and NOT before Britney says so.

I will concede that things aren’t going as well as we had all hoped. I will even concede that reckless behavior and child endangerment will probably increase in the short term. But folks, we made a commitment to Britney and to her kids when this started. We owe it to the kids and we owe it to ourselves not to lose the stomach for this until things eventually get better.

To do otherwise would be insanity.

Four Myths of Iraq

I could respect the fact that Bush doesn't listen to polls--but you have to admit, he doesn't listen to experts either. He also doesn't listen to the Congress, the military, the Independent Study group, the American people, nor the military experts--such as retired General Odom. He, along with everyone else, decries Bush's "stay-the-course" strategy (and the recent "stay the course plus 21,500"). Retired General Odom addressed four myths in a recent article that are perpetuated by the right-wing to keep our troops quagmired in Iraq:

1. We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

2. We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.

3. We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.

4. We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

Hillsborough Deputies Throw Quadriplegic Out Of Wheelchair

Take Action: Rape Victim Jailed & Denied Emergency Contraception

Diary from Daily Kos by Native Gator: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/30/0139/40875


Take Action:
Tell Governor Christ to do something about his or go to hell:
http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/ItsOUTRAGEOUS

New Look & Rollout of first edition of Online Magazine

First things first. Congratulations to Tally and his first edition of Turning Florida Blue. You may check it out here. I will do whatever I can to support this effort--gotta represent the heartland.

You may have noticed the new look of the blog. I figured I'd give a little info on what your looking at in the banner (From left to right): Seminole County logo, Seminole County Courthouse (Sanford Office), Intersection of I-4 and 434 (Altamonte Springs), another Sem Co Logo, Historic Downtown Sanford (capital of our County), nature trail (hard to see, but its there), and the stylized new official Democratic logo of a our donkey KICKIN A**!!

I will return to blogging next week! Keep on kickin'!!

Why Vote Democratic?

Democrats believe in creating opportunity for all Americans, not just a select few. Democratic Presidents and Congresses initiated all past programs that strengthened our middle class and nation, including Social Security and Medicare, the GI Bill, low-interest loans for college, and Family and Medical Leave, to name just a few.

The Republican Party has shown itself dedicated to promoting the interests of big business and only wealthy Americans by:

• increasing corporate handouts, such as with the Medicare prescription drug law that prevents the government from negotiating lower drug prices;
• cutting taxes for the wealthiest five percent of Americans and slashing funding for veterans' benefits, police officers, and college loan and grant programs, while simultaneously creating a burgeoning deficit that threatens our long-term economic security; and
• turning a blind eye to the one in five American children who (through no fault of their own) live in poverty.

The job approval ratings of President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress continue to decline as Americans realize the Republican Party has abandoned our cherished middle-class values.

The Democratic Party seeks for all Americans affordable, high-quality health care and education; high-paying jobs; and security in retirement that clearly represent the interests of the 95 percent of Americans who work to pay bills and provide for their families.

Welcome!

Welcome to the brand-new blog for the Seminole County Democrats! If you are interested in writing about local politics, let us know! Visit www.seminoledemocrats.com or email us at webmaster@seminoledemocrats.com.